Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV24296, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV24296, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24296 Hearing Date: January 30, 2024 Dept: 30

CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY vs JAKOB LAMOUREUX, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant Steven Lamoureux’s motion to compel responses to request for production of documents (set one) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses without objections to Defendant’s request for production, set one, within 20 days. Both parties’ request for sanctions is DENIED. Moving party to give notice.

Judicial Assistant is directed to transfer this case from the PI Hub as this deals with property damage only. Clerk to give notice.

Legal Standard

Compel RPDs

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to compel responses to requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c).)

Under CCP section 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

Discussion

Defendant Steven Lamoureux’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One were propounded on Plaintiff California Automobile Insurance Company on June 13, 2023, via email service to the email address of Plaintiff’s counsel of record. (Kalter Decl., ¶ 2.) The deadline to respond to the Requests for Production was July 13, 2023. (Id., ¶ 3.) No response or request for extension was received on or by that date. (Id.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the discovery requests were not properly served because current counsel for Plaintiff stated it does not accept electrotonic service. Next, Plaintiff argues Defense counsel did not at any time prior to the filing of the present motion, notify the current handling attorney that there were any outstanding discovery requests. Plaintiff argues that Defendant has still not served his discovery requests, any meet and confer message, or the instant motion to Plaintiff’s e-service address or by mail. Lastly, Plaintiff argues it served responses to Defendant’s request for production of documents on January 17, 2024. (McCammack Decl., 9; ¶ Exh. F.)

First, this motion has no meet and confer requirement. Further, Defendant served the discovery by email to the attorney of record at the time. The discovery was served on June 13, 2023, and Plaintiff states Anderson left the firm in July of 2023. Therefore, the attorney was still at Plaintiff’s firm when the discovery was served and should have transferred the file to current counsel. Plaintiff does not argue that Anderson did not accept electronic service, only that current counsel does not. However, the discovery responses were already served on Anderson. While the motion was not served on current counsel, Plaintiff clearly had notice of it and filed an opposition. Thus, there is no prejudice. As such, the Court finds there is no issue with service of the discovery. Lastly, Plaintiff’s responses attached as Exhibit F are not verified; unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632.) Therefore, the motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses without objections within 20 days.

As for sanctions, neither party has provided adequate notice in the notice of motion/opposition. Defendant does not state who he seeks sanctions against in the notice of motion. And Plaintiff fails to request sanctions in the notice. Thus, both parties request for sanctions is DENIED for improper notice. (See CCP section 2023.040.)